1. The Superseding Indictment was brought against 18 defendants.

Sixteen entered guilty pleas, one remains a fugitive and one is now

deceased.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. CRIM. NO. 05-123-3

DEDMAS SANCHEZ

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUFE, J. JULY 18th, 2006

 Defendant Dedmas Sanchez (“Sanchez”) was sentenced to a term of

imprisonment of 120 months followed by five years of supervised release. Sanchez

pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute over one kilogram of heroin in

violation of 18 U.S.C. section 846 and one count of possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924.1

The charges against Sanchez are based on his involvement in the

operation of a large scale, long-standing heroin ring with its hub of criminal activity

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 10
2. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).

3. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 5, pt. A 

4. See id.

5. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1.

2

in the City of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Specifically, Sanchez’s role in the criminal

enterprise included coordinating the daily narcotics activity of the lower-level

workers. Significantly, Sanchez’s older brother was one of the criminal operation’s

two chief architects and ring-leaders. During the time that Sanchez was a member of

the drug ring, the enterprise distributed approximately one kilogram of heroin per

month, which generated approximately 20,000 ten-dollar bags of heroin. 

Under the federal statutory sentencing provisions, Sanchez faced a

minimum term of imprisonment of twenty years regarding the conspiracy count 2 and

a consecutive mandatory minimum term of five years imprisonment on the firearm

count. It was undisputed that Sanchez’s total offense level under the Sentencing

Guidelines was thirty-six and that he had a Category III Criminal History.3 Based

on a total offense level of thirty-six and a Category III Criminal History, the guideline

range for imprisonment on the conspiracy count was 235 to 295 months. 4 However,

because of the statutory provisions referenced above, the range for the conspiracy

count increased to 240 to 295 months.5 The term of five years imprisonment imposed

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 10
6. United States v. Torres, 251 F.3d 138, 147 (3d Cir. 2001)(instructing courts to provide bases of analysis for downward departures

and indicate its recognition of factors set forth in sentencing

guidelines).

7. Doc. #362.

3

under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c) runs consecutively to any other term of imprisonment.

As a result, Sanchez’s potential guideline sentence ranged from 300 to 355 months.

The Government filed amotion to depart downward from the mandatory

minimum sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3553(e) and section 5K.1.1 of the

United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) based on the level of assistance

Sanchez provided. After carefully considering the Torres6 factors, the Court granted

the Government’s motion and sentenced Sanchez to a term of imprisonment of 120

months. The next day, Sanchez filed an appeal, arguing that the Court should have

granted a more significant downward departure from the guidelines.

As an initial matter, Sanchez is not permitted to appeal his sentence. As

part of his plea agreement, Sanchez “voluntarily and expressly waive[d] all rights to

appeal or collaterally attack [his] conviction, sentence, or any other matter relating

to this prosecution.”7 The only exceptions listed in the plea agreement, other than if

the Government filed an appeal as of right, permitted an appeal based on a claim that:

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 10
8. Id

9. See United States v. Lockett, 406 F.3d 207, 214 (3d Cir. 2005).

10. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2003).

4

(1) the defendant’s sentence on any count of conviction

exceeds the statutory maximum for that count ...; or

(2) the sentencing judge unreasonably departed upward from the 

otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range.8

Neither exception applies here. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Court

of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain Sanchez’s pro se appeal.9

Nevertheless, the Court herein undertakes to set forth the rationale

buttressing the discretionary sentence imposed in this case. The Court submits that

its sentence, imposed in accordance with the sentencing statute, is reasonable. 

18 U.S.C. section 3553(e) gives a court limited authority to impose a

sentence below the statutory minimum, providing in relevant part: “[u]pon motion

of the Government, the court shall have the authority to impose a sentence below a

level established by statute as a minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant’s

substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has

committed an offense.”10 Similarly, section 5K1.1of the U.S.S.G. provides: “[u]pon

motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial

assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 10
11. U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 (2005).

12. Id.

13. United States v. Torres, 251 F.3d 138, 147 (3d Cir. 2001).

5

an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines.” 11 Section 5K1.1 further

provides:

(a) The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the

court for reasons stated that may include, but are not

limited to, consideration of the following:

(1) the court’s evaluation of the significance

and usefulness of the defendant’s assistance,

taking into consideration the government’s

evaluation of the assistance rendered;

(2) the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant;

(3) the nature and extent of the defendant’s

assistance;

(4) any injury suffered, or any danger or risk

of injury to the defendant or his family resulting from his assistance;

(5) the timeliness of the defendant’s assistance.12

As the Third Circuit has directed, “[w]hen presented with a motion for

a downward departure, the sentencing judge must, at the very minimum, indicate his

or her consideration of section 5K1.1's five factors in determining whether and to

what extent to grant a sentencing reduction.” 13

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 5 of 10
14. In fact, Sanchez was the first defendant to testify and the

first to plead guilty. According to the Government, Sanchez’s

decision to testify broke the logjam and ultimately resulted in all

sixteen defendants taking a plea. Transcript of Sentencing at 26.

15. Transcript of Sentencing at 6-11,24-27.

6

Here, the Government stated at sentencing that it sought a downward

departure based on the following: (1) Sanchez was one of the first three defendants

to cooperate with the Government;14 (2) Sanchez participated in at least six proffers,

and all of his information proved to be reliable; (3) Sanchez testified for the

Government in the grand jury proceedings, which resulted in the indictment of two

additional members of the drug ring-- one of whom was Sanchez’s younger brother;

and (4) the fact that Sanchez will have to be isolated from his co-defendants,

especially his older brother.15

In grantingtheGovernment’s motion for downward departure, the Court

carefully set forth on the record its evaluation of the Torres factors and the manner

in which it weighed those factors as follows:

And it would be impossible for the Court not to accept

what [the government] has said, because of course, we

have seen it play out in this prosecution countless times

over–16 times, as a matter of fact– over the last six months,

that the pleas have been taken. We know that the information had to be not only substantial but reliable. Corroborated by other Defendants. And strong enough to warrant

a grand jury issuing a Superseding Indictment. Strong

enough to be credible, and that means that other DefenCase 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 6 of 10
16. Transcript of Sentencing at 11-12.

7

dants and their wise Defense attorneys were properly

advising them as to how to proceed.

We think that Mr. Dedmas Sanchez has provided the

Court with all the necessary facts to support the Torres

factor analysis. We also agree, knowing that this is a large

and full-scale operation–heroin ring in the City of Allentown, with many firearms being possessed and used in

furtherance, that there is no way there isn’t inherent

danger. Even though, we may not have heard a specific

threat against Mr. Sanchez, that’s most probably because

the Government and the prison has [sic] worked so diligently in keeping him away from others. However, it is

noted in the record that Mr. Sanchez himself did not want

members of his family to know what he was doing. And we

know that’s with good reason. So the danger is apparent to

me even though it was notspecific–specifically enumerated

in this case.

We also think his timeliness has been significant. And

when you’re the first, or one of the first three, it counts. It

counts for a great measure. And I would say, it counts not

only in the granting of the Government’s motion, but may

also count later on when we start talking about factors and

ability to be rehabilitated.

So with all of the above, knowing the results of this case,

and the Indictment, we are going to grant the Government’s motion as unopposed and because the facts are

more than sufficient to support the Torres factor analysis.

We will grant that motion not only to depart from the

sentencing guideline range but also to depart pursuant to

3553(e) from the mandatory minimum, which is severe in

this case–25 years, if you count the consecutive counts.16

 

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 7 of 10
17. 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

18. Id. at 264.

8

As noted above, Sanchez faced a sentence of 300 months according to

the advisory sentencing guidelines. However, United States v. Booker17 requires

the Court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well, particularly those set forth at 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).18 That section provides, in pertinent

part:

(a) Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence.–The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not

greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes ser

forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in

determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall

consider–

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the

offense and the history and characteristics of

the defendant:

 (2) the need for the sentence imposed–

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to

promote respect for the law, and to provide

punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal

conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes

 of the defendant; and

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 8 of 10
19. 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a).

20. Sentencing Recommendation, United States Probation Office at

2-3.

9

(D) to provide the defendant with needed

educational or vocational training, medical

care, or other correctional treatment in the

most effective manner.....

19

The 120 month sentence imposed was reasonable given Sanchez’s role

in the conspiracy as a trusted, mid-level supervisor of a large heroin ring that

poisoned the residential streets of the City of Allentown. As a mid-level supervisor,

Sanchez profited more than many of his co-defendants. Indeed, approximately

$35,000 in cash was recovered from Sanchez’s home at the time it was searched.

Sanchez also possessed a loaded firearm for the purpose of protecting his interests

throughout the conspiracy. In addition, Sanchez was a member of the conspiracy for

twenty-three months, ceasing activity only upon arrest. In all, Sanchez was involved

in the distribution of approximately twenty-three kilograms of heroin.

20

The sentence imposed intends to protect the community and to promote

respect for the law. Additionally, in light of Sanchez’s inability to maintain

employment and his history of drug abuse, including a prior drug conviction,

the 120 month sentence provides Sanchez the opportunity to access needed treatment

and to the educational and/or vocational training needed to achieve his rehabilitation

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 9 of 10
10

and return to the community as a productive law-abiding citizen. Moreover, the

sentence, which was fifteen years less than the mandatory minimum, adequately

reflects the substantial assistance Sanchez provided. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe, J.

 _______________________

 Cynthia M. Rufe, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00123-CMR Document 550 Filed 07/18/06 Page 10 of 10